By whom should it be owned, then? Or to unpack the concept of ownership, who gets to farm, or mine, or build on a given piece of land, and how will it be decided? Is the answer going to again be “somehow”? You say I’m reading my vision into your words, but that’s because I’m not seeing any vision in them.
We were talking about a new society, one that runs on rationality.
I am not seeing the rationality content here.
I’m leaving the rest unresponded to, because we’re both of us well into politics-as-mindkiller territory here, and I don’t think prolonging the discussion is going to be useful in this venue.
ETA: But it would be polite for me to respond to your direct question, why I don’t agree with caps on individual wealth. Because every honestly earned dollar in someone’s hands means that they created more than a dollar’s worth of value in someone else’s. That is what it is, to earn money. When people pay you for what you do, your financial worth is a measure of the value you have created for them. Why cap that?
Of course, there are dishonest people, but to take away everyone’s supposed excess money as a remedy is to fine everyone for the deeds of a few. And there are the practical issues of people evading such regulations by emigrating or restructuring their affairs so as not to legally “own” the wealth that they actually have control over. The dishonest are at an advantage here.
I have heard (unsourced anecdote) that when you ask people what is the largest income anyone really needs, they generally name a figure about 10 times their own. Whatever their own income is.
I also discovered that my comments are down voted into oblivion. … I have to assume that my contributions to this forum are not yet of high enough quality.
This forum is better than most but has not achieved enlightenment (yet :-D). Some up- or down-voting happens on the basis of the quality of comments, but a lot just signals the agreement or disagreement with the views of the poster.
You basically proposed communism which magically lacked all the icky bits. That will get you a bunch of downvotes :-)
Some up- or down-voting happens on the basis of the quality of comments, but a lot just signals the agreement or disagreement with the views of the poster.
Oh well… I’m totally ok on being downvoted on accounts of low quality of my comments however, I wasn’t really expecting people here to downvote comments just because they don’t agree with them. I have adjusted that belief now and will act with a little bit more caution.
You basically proposed communism which magically lacked all the icky bits. That will get you a bunch of downvotes :-)
I guess I did that :) but it was a good lesson. It pointed to the fact that I should refrain from speaking without having at least a reasonable model about what I am speaking about. :)
By whom should it be owned, then? Or to unpack the concept of ownership, who gets to farm, or mine, or build on a given piece of land, and how will it be decided? Is the answer going to again be “somehow”? You say I’m reading my vision into your words, but that’s because I’m not seeing any vision in them.
I am not seeing the rationality content here.
I’m leaving the rest unresponded to, because we’re both of us well into politics-as-mindkiller territory here, and I don’t think prolonging the discussion is going to be useful in this venue.
ETA: But it would be polite for me to respond to your direct question, why I don’t agree with caps on individual wealth. Because every honestly earned dollar in someone’s hands means that they created more than a dollar’s worth of value in someone else’s. That is what it is, to earn money. When people pay you for what you do, your financial worth is a measure of the value you have created for them. Why cap that?
Of course, there are dishonest people, but to take away everyone’s supposed excess money as a remedy is to fine everyone for the deeds of a few. And there are the practical issues of people evading such regulations by emigrating or restructuring their affairs so as not to legally “own” the wealth that they actually have control over. The dishonest are at an advantage here.
I have heard (unsourced anecdote) that when you ask people what is the largest income anyone really needs, they generally name a figure about 10 times their own. Whatever their own income is.
I agree. I also discovered that my comments are down voted into oblivion.
I have to assume that my contributions to this forum are not yet of high enough quality.
Anyways… I’m grateful for your comments. They have been uncomfortable and made me think.
This forum is better than most but has not achieved enlightenment (yet :-D). Some up- or down-voting happens on the basis of the quality of comments, but a lot just signals the agreement or disagreement with the views of the poster.
You basically proposed communism which magically lacked all the icky bits. That will get you a bunch of downvotes :-)
Oh well… I’m totally ok on being downvoted on accounts of low quality of my comments however, I wasn’t really expecting people here to downvote comments just because they don’t agree with them. I have adjusted that belief now and will act with a little bit more caution.
I guess I did that :) but it was a good lesson. It pointed to the fact that I should refrain from speaking without having at least a reasonable model about what I am speaking about. :)